Remember the kid that got suspended for the NRA shirt? He's now facing Charges

Remember the kid that got suspended for the NRA shirt? He's now facing Charges

This is a discussion on Remember the kid that got suspended for the NRA shirt? He's now facing Charges within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; The West Virginia eighth-grader who was suspended and arrested in late April after he refused to remove a t-shirt supporting the National Rifle Association appeared ...

Remember the kid that got suspended for the NRA shirt? He's now facing Charges

The West Virginia eighth-grader who was suspended and arrested in late April after he refused to remove a t-shirt supporting the National Rifle Association appeared in court this week and was formally charged with obstructing an officer.

14-year-old Jared Marcum now faces a $500 fine and a maximum of one year in prison.

Here are all the phone numbers for the interested parties, please call them and voice your displeasure over what's happening to this young man.

Just because a person supports our cause, doesn't mean they support it correctly. The kid is going to get community service and that will be about it. The reality is that if you get upset when the police are around and start mouthing off, there is a good chance you are going to jail. Is it right? Most likely not, but there is a very thin line between trying to state your case or reason and interfering with an officer doing their job.

The correct way for the kid to have acted is to ask why the shirt was not allowed, after that, turned the shirt inside out and went about his day. Told his parents when he got home and let them address it to the school board. Once the police were involved he should have requested his parents and kept his mouth shut.

Just because a person supports our cause, doesn't mean they support it correctly. The kid is going to get community service and that will be about it. The reality is that if you get upset when the police are around and start mouthing off, there is a good chance you are going to jail. Is it right? Most likely not, but there is a very thin line between trying to state your case or reason and interfering with an officer doing their job.

The correct way for the kid to have acted is to ask why the shirt was not allowed, after that, turned the shirt inside out and went about his day. Told his parents when he got home and let them address it to the school board. Once the police were involved he should have requested his parents and kept his mouth shut.

Just because a person supports our cause, doesn't mean they support it correctly. The kid is going to get community service and that will be about it. The reality is that if you get upset when the police are around and start mouthing off, there is a good chance you are going to jail. Is it right? Most likely not, but there is a very thin line between trying to state your case or reason and interfering with an officer doing their job.

The correct way for the kid to have acted is to ask why the shirt was not allowed, after that, turned the shirt inside out and went about his day. Told his parents when he got home and let them address it to the school board. Once the police were involved he should have requested his parents and kept his mouth shut.

This is America, not the soviet union. This child deserves none of which he is getting....

Just because a person supports our cause, doesn't mean they support it correctly. The kid is going to get community service and that will be about it. The reality is that if you get upset when the police are around and start mouthing off, there is a good chance you are going to jail. Is it right? Most likely not, but there is a very thin line between trying to state your case or reason and interfering with an officer doing their job.

The correct way for the kid to have acted is to ask why the shirt was not allowed, after that, turned the shirt inside out and went about his day. Told his parents when he got home and let them address it to the school board. Once the police were involved he should have requested his parents and kept his mouth shut.

If he did as you suggested this would not have made the media...which I think is a good thing in this case. You do realize that many times the ACLU supports cases like this. I am sure that if the parents went to the school board everything would be just hunky dory.

And.....how do you know he did mouth off to the LEO? That is an assumption on your part. Innocent until proven guilty and all that right?

Just because a person supports our cause, doesn't mean they support it correctly. The kid is going to get community service and that will be about it. The reality is that if you get upset when the police are around and start mouthing off, there is a good chance you are going to jail. Is it right? Most likely not, but there is a very thin line between trying to state your case or reason and interfering with an officer doing their job.

The correct way for the kid to have acted is to ask why the shirt was not allowed, after that, turned the shirt inside out and went about his day. Told his parents when he got home and let them address it to the school board. Once the police were involved he should have requested his parents and kept his mouth shut.

Got a source for your assertions? If so, please post it. From what I have read, the teacher is the one who disrupted the educational process by getting her knickers in a knot about a t-shirt that IIRC did not violate the school's dress code. I don't know what the kid said, if anything, but would love to read your source.

You seem to be OK with the kid being found guilty of wearing a t-shirt to school and not taking it off when a female teacher wants to see his abs. If it were a male teacher telling a female student to do the same thing, he would have gotten fired for sexual harassment. Further, the kid was "charged" with disturbing the educational environment - at lunch, in the lunchroom. The only education going on there is kids seeing how they can swap food for a better deal - and the female teacher who wanted to see some young kids abs.

I'm just a spoke in the wheel but not a big deal.
America...a Constitutional Republic. NOT a democracy as the liberals would have us believe. Give me Liberty or give me BACON!!!
You know that look women give you when they want some sugar? Me neither

You've obviously not committed civil disobediance nor know what it means. (Disclaimer to Mods here. Not looking for trouble or slurring OWS-CMA)

No I have not committed civil disobedience but I am very aware of what it means. I disagree with it in the vast majority of cases because it is counter-productive. If you disagree with a rule or a law get it changed, but I don't think that breaking that law is the correct thing to do. There are of course exceptions to that, but in most cases I believe it applies.

No I have not committed civil disobedience but I am very aware of what it means. I disagree with it in the vast majority of cases because it is counter-productive. If you disagree with a rule or a law get it changed, but I don't think that breaking that law is the correct thing to do. There are of course exceptions to that, but in most cases I believe it applies.

OK fine, but what did the kid do wrong here to precipitate this event and resulting fall out? He wore a shirt that was within the school's dress code only to be dressed down by a teacher at lunch because she did not like the message she got from the shirt. She orders the kid to remove the shirt and he tells her no. The cops then say the kid almost started a riot. Seems like we have an epic fail here in determining the root cause - hint, it is not the kid.

OK fine, but what did the kid do wrong here to precipitate this event and resulting fall out? He wore a shirt that was within the school's dress code only to be dressed down by a teacher at lunch because she did not like the message she got from the shirt. She orders the kid to remove the shirt and he tells her no. The cops then say the kid almost started a riot. Seems like we have an epic fail here in determining the root cause - hint, it is not the kid.

You do realize the only side of the story you are getting is the parent's and the kid's, right? Of course their version is that he did no wrong. But the DA evidently believes that the kid did enough to charge him. The way this normally works is that between the two stories is the truth. I doubt the kid is as innocent has he and his parents are trying to make him and I have no doubt the teacher and the officer handled it poorly.